1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. On May 21, 2019, at around 15:12, 2019, the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) of the Defendant insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) in relation to the insurance at the time of the accident involving the recognition of the fact that the Defendant vehicle changed from three lanes to four lanes in the same direction from the five lanes to the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle while the Defendant vehicle changed from the four lanes in front of the Gandong-ro 7-12 Gandong-ro, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul from May 21, 2019 at around 15:12, to the four lanes in the front of the Gandong-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government. The collision between the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle and the right side of the Defendant vehicle. The amount of insurance money paid KRW 613,000,

A. The following are the developments leading up to the accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On June 3, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 613,000, excluding KRW 153,000, to the Plaintiff’s automobile repair expenses, etc. as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4, 6 through 8, Eul 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident is an accident caused by the change of the vehicle line without turning on the direction direction, and that the Defendant vehicle driver is fully responsible for the instant accident. Therefore, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant the total amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident is first attributable to the Plaintiff’s driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the collision between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. (1) The following circumstances, i.e., the accident of this case, i.e., the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, due to the change of course from five lanes to four lanes, due to the Plaintiff’s change of course, could sufficiently know the situation where the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle intended to change the course from three lanes to four lanes, but neglecting the duty of care in the front bank.